Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/04	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he wants his discharge upgraded so he can join the Army. His discharge was improper because other soldiers did the same thing as he and was not discharged. Also, he states that he was called a derogatory name and nothing was done.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 071221
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080118   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Company E, 2-8th Infantry Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO 80913 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070920, Derelict in the performance of his duties, in that he failed to prevent Soldiers under the age of 21 from drinking alcohol (070907); and wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 (070901); reduction to Private (E-1); suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (080320); forfeiture of $340.00 pay; extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG) 

Article 15; 071011, Failed to obey a lawful order issued by a COL, by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 (070928); and disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT (070928); reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG) 

Article 15; 071212, With intent to deceive, made an official statement to a SGT, which was false (071119); with intent to deceive, made an official statement to a CPT, which was false on (071119); and broke restriction (071119); forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 061010    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  17 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21B10 Combat Engineer   GT: 92   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 December 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct; in that he was drinking alcohol while under the age of 21, making false official statements on numerous occasions, breaking restriction and disobeying a commissioned officer, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, if the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Finally, although the applicant alleges that he was a victim of racism during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 29 May 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA 





VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080013725
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages